Student+Response+Systems

=Student Response Systems= Student response systems appear under various names in the literature (classroom response system, electronic response system, audience response system, electronic voting system, polling, or classroom communication systems).
 * Product/ device: **Students Response Systems (SRS)

Response devices are small hand held devices that allow students to respond to categorical questions that are embedded into a lesson at strategic points. The instructor has a choice as to how publicly or how anonymously student input signals are collected and displayed. Typically, after a question is posed, students have time to discuss the question and possible answers within small groups of students before selecting an answer on the key pad. A class computer, equipped with hardware and software, receives, tabulates, and displays student’s responses in the form of a graph or chart, providing instantaneous feedback and a starting point for further discussions.

Used from elementary classrooms to grad school lecture halls and throughout various disciplines, research supports SRS are effective for increasing student participation levels and levels of concept attainment (Abrahamson, Penuel, & Roschelle, 2004; Brown, & Draper, 2004).

Traditional education was directed towards isolating the learner from social interaction, and focused on the relationship between the learner and the learning material. Recent research reminds us of the importance of the social aspect of learning and the need to encourage conversations and interaction with others. The roots of this approach go as far back as Dewey (1938, 1963) and [|Vygotsky] (1978) who believed that the process of learning is facilitated through individual participation in social interactions.
 * Learning Theory **

According to Abrahamson et al., (2004) student response systems facilitate a learner and community centered classroom because they facilitate the participation of every student in discussions and enable teachers to address specific needs of the group. The use of SRS systems requires, the role of the teacher to change from presenter of information to a facilitator or learning coach (Bonk & Dennen, 2002; McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006; Merrill, 2004 as cited by Klein, 2009) which are key components in constructivist learning. A [|social constructivist approach] “recognizes the responsibility of the student to actively create conceptual understanding and application (scaffolding) with recognition of the social aspects of learning that occurs through discussion and interaction with others (zone of proximal development)” (Klein, 2009). When used with sound pedagogical practices Student Response Systems can create and sustain an active learning environment that promotes collaborative social learning.  As summarized by Klein (2009) SRS use within a constructivist and social learning context includes activities such as: peer instruction, think-pair-share, class wide discussion, comparison questions, case studies, team competitions/games and problem-based learning (PBL) activities

A primary goal of many teachers who use student response systems for any age group is to promote greater interactive engagement with the subject matter during the class discussion in hopes of improving student achievement and concept attainment (Brown & Draper, 2004). Research indicates that teachers primarily choose to use SRS in their class to promote student engagement and participation in class by having the students all answer posed questions and use the answers to encourage class discussions (Brown & Draper, 2004). Discussions with peers enhances understanding, regardless of whether or not any of the students participating in the discussion group originally knows the correct answer (Adams, Guild, Knight, Smith, Su, Wieman, & Wood, 2009). A number of researchers have observed that clickers stimulate discussion and promote group collaboration, especially when they are used with a peer instruction strategy (Boyle & Nicol [|2003]). With this strategy, students felt they were better able to discuss and improve their understanding of higher level concepts (Brown & Draper, [|2004]; Klein, 2009). Mazur (as cited by Jackson and Trees 2007) argued that a student who did not understand a concept was able to gain understanding by discussing the concept through with a student who was also in the early stages of his or her comprehension.
 * Benefits/ Educational significance **

Although SRS require increased student participation when compared to traditional lecture style teaching, research indicates that the shift from observer to active participant is not always easy for all students. According to Mazur (1997, as cited by Jackson & Trees, 2007), the use of clickers “creates an environment in which students have a more public, risky presence in contrast to the low-risk, anonymous presence of students in traditional large lectures. It also creates a learning environment with higher expectations” (Jackson & Trees, 2007, p. 25) and promotes increased anxiety in students (Ganger & Jackson, 2003). Boyle and Nicol (2003) suggest the uncertainty of the effectiveness of this technology by stating that improvements in learning and learning environment cannot be attributed to the use of a SRS alone, but because of the changes in the overall pedagogical approach from the instructor using SRS requires. Therefore, the SRS system itself does not create the environment, how the instructor uses the devices determines the effectiveness of creating a collaborative learning environment. When used within behaviourist teaching approach Student Response Systems will not promote the advanced interactivity and collaborative social learning community (Klein, 2009). In behaviorism-based learning environments, SRS would be used in ways such as; the completion of familiar tasks, monitoring student behaviour by using the device as a quiz (obtaining correct responses to multiple-choice questions) or taking attendance or polling student opinions without pre or post questioning discussions ( Beatty, 2004; Deal, 2007; Judson & Sawada, 2002 as cited by Klein, 2009).
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Barriers/ Restrictions **


 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Natural linkages to other tools **

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Interactive White Boards


 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Other: **<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"> Software applications based upon the same principals of SRS systems are being created and tested within many classrooms. Technological advancements will most likely make these types of applications more prevalent in classrooms in the next short while. One example found in a few studies is the COLLPAD application which provides greater collaborative possibilities. COLLPAD connects learners and groups of learners through the use of a more sophisticated handheld device.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">The COLLPAD system works by dividing the class into 3 groups. After an answer is posed, the student is given time to reflect and respond using the device. Once all their individual answers are entered, the groups proceed to the Group Discussion Phase. At that point students discuss the problem collaboratively and make use of their previous knowledge as they converge on a common solution. Another response may be inputted that may be the students initial individual answer or one the group built concurrently. Roles and duties, such as scribe or reviewer can be assigned to user of the COLLPAD.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">The diagram in Figure 1 presents an example of a complete cycle of a COLLPAD activity. Taken from: <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Nussbaum, M., <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Alvarez, C., <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">McFarlane, A., <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Gomez, F., Claro, S., & Radovic, D. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"> (2009). Technology as small group face-to-face Collaborative Scaffolding. //Computer & Education. 52//(1), 147-153.



<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">The diagram in Figure 2 presents an example of a complete cycle of a COLLPAD activity. The statement “What is the key factor in the design of an ATM machine?” was posed. In the Individual Response phase, all the groups in the class (such as the one in the diagram formed by Peter, John and Mary) receive the professor’s question and COLLPAD then prompts each student to enter his/her own personal response.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">

media type="youtube" key="CnnP0uCqD4k" height="315" width="420"

**References** <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Abrahamson, A. L., Penuel, W. R., & Roschelle, J. (2004). The networked classroom. Educational //Leadership, 61//(5), 50-54. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy .lib.ucalgary.ca/ehost/pdfviewer /pdfviewer?vid=2&hid=106&sid=89adf07f-7c80-4014-8937-182dc9b657c3%40sessionmgr104

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Adams, W., Guild, N., Knight, J., Smith, M., Su, T., Wieman, C., & Wood, W. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions, //Science//, //323//(5910), 122-124. Retrieved from <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">[|http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content /abstract/323/5910/1]

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Alvarez, C., Nussbaum, M., Recabarren, M., Gomez, F., & Radovic, D.(n.d). Teaching Communication, Interpersonal and Decision-Making Skills in Engineering Courses Supported by Technology. Retrieved from: http://dcc.puc.cl/system/files/MN32-Teaching+communication.pdf

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Boyle, J., & Nicol, D. J. (2003). Peer Instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. //Studies in Higher Education,// //28//(4), 457-473. Retrieved from <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~ctalk/bulletin /glasgow1.pdf

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Brown, M., & Draper, S. W. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. //Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20//(2), 81-94. Retrieved from <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/ilig/papers/draperbrown.pdf

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Ganger, A. C., & Jackson, M. (2003). Wireless handheld computers in the preclinical undergraduate curriculum. //Medical Education Online,// //8.// Retrieved from http: //<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">[|www.med-ed-online.net/index.php/meo/article/view/4340/4522] //

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"> Jackson, M. H., & Trees, A. R. (2007). The learning environment in clicker classrooms: student processes of learning and involvement in large university course using student response systems. //Learning Media and Technology, 32//(1), 21-40. doi:<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">[|10.1080/174398806011 41179]

Klein, K. (2009). Promoting collaborative social learning communities with student response systems **. **//<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5//(4). Retrieved from <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">[|http://jolt]. merlot.org/vol5no4/klein_1209.htm

Nussbaum, M., <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 14.6667px;">Alvarez, C., McFarlane, A., Gomez, F., Claro, S., & Radovic, D. (2009). Technology as small group face-to-face Collaborative Scaffolding. //Computer & Education. 52//(1), 147-153.

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.